Statistician: Two major studies found no causal link between medical procedure X and disorder Y, but these studies are flawed. One study looked at 1,000 people who had undergone procedure X and the other study looked at 1,100 people who had undergone procedure X. But because disorder Y occurs in only .02 percent of the population, researchers would need to include many more than 1,100 people in a study to detect even a doubling of the rate of disorder Y.

Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
The statistician identifies a problem with two studies. The studies are flawed because their sample sizes are too small to provide useful data, based on how rarely disorder Y actually occurs.

Identify Conclusion
The conclusion is the statistician’s criticism of the studies: “these studies are flawed.”

A
Contrary to the findings of two major studies, there is reason to think that procedure X causes disorder Y.
The statistician doesn’t go so far as to make this claim. He merely claims that the studies are flawed, without taking a position on whether or not procedure X actually does cause disorder Y.
B
Two studies that discovered no causal link between procedure X and disorder Y are unsound.
This is a good paraphrase of the conclusion. “Unsound” and “flawed” both get at the same point: the studies are unreliable.
C
Researchers should conduct more-extensive studies of procedure X to determine whether the procedure is causally linked with disorder Y.
The statistician never recommends any course of action for researchers. He also doesn’t suggest that, in general, studies of procedure X and disorder Y aren’t extensive enough. He merely notes that these two particular studies aren’t extensive enough.
D
The two studies cited did not reach a conclusion as to whether disorder Y results from procedure X.
This is contradicted by the statistician’s claim at the top of the stimulus. He acknowledges that the two studies reached a conclusion: they concluded that there was no causal link. He then goes on to explain why those studies’ conclusion is flawed.
E
Despite the opinions of many medical experts, it has not been established that there is a causal link between procedure X and disorder Y.
The statistician doesn’t consider the opinions of “many medical experts,” so such opinions can't be involved in his conclusion. Also, he only considers the findings of these two studies—he doesn’t suggest what has or hasn’t been established outside those studies.

20 comments

Two things are true of all immoral actions. First, if they are performed in public, they offend public sensibilities. Second, they are accompanied by feelings of guilt.

Summary
If an immoral action is performed in public, it offends public sensibilities.
All immoral actions are accompanied by feelings of guilt.

Notable Valid Inferences
There’s no clear inference to draw. Since we’re looking for an answer that must be false, we can anticipate that the answer will contradict one of the fact. So, it could be “some immoral actions that are performed in public do NOT offend public sensibilities” or “some immoral actions are NOT accompanied by feelings of guilt.”

A
Some immoral actions that are not performed in public are not accompanied by feelings of guilt.
Must be false. All immoral actions are accompanied by feelings of guilt. So it can’t be true that some immoral actions (whether or not they are performed in public) aren’t accompanied by feelings of guilt.
B
Immoral actions are wrong solely by virtue of being accompanied by feelings of guilt.
Could be true. We don’t know whether or why immoral actions are wrong. So it could be true that this is the only reason immoral actions are wrong.
C
Some actions that offend public sensibilities if they are performed in public are not accompanied by feelings of guilt.
Could be true. Some actions might not be accompanied by feelings of guilt, if they are not immoral actions. The stimulus only tells us about immoral actions, so anything could be true about moral actions.
D
Some actions that are accompanied by feelings of guilt are not immoral, even if they frequently offend public sensibilities.
Could be true. The stimulus only tells us about immoral actions. If an action is moral, anything could be true about it. So it’s possible some actions that aren’t accompanied by feelings of guilt are not immoral.
E
Every action performed in public that is accompanied by feelings of guilt is immoral.
Could be true. It’s possible every action that is accompanied by guilt is immoral. Although this would be an invalid inference from the facts, that doesn’t mean it must be false.

31 comments

Vervet monkeys use different alarm calls to warn each other of nearby predators, depending on whether the danger comes from land or from the air.

"Surprising" Phenomenon
Why do vervet monkeys use different alarm calls to warn each other of nearby land-based predators than they use to warn each other of nearby air-based predators?

Objective
The correct answer must provide a reason that using different alarm calls for land-based predators than air-based predators is beneficial to or necessary for vervet monkeys.

A
By varying the pitch of its alarm call, a vervet monkey can indicate the number of predators approaching.
The stimulus isn’t concerned with vervet monkeys alerting each other of the number of predators approaching. We’re focused on why the monkeys use different calls for predators coming by land than for predators coming by air.
B
Different land-based predators are responsible for different numbers of vervet monkey deaths.
Knowing different land-based predators kill varying numbers of vervet monkeys doesn’t have anything to do with why the monkeys use different calls for land-based predators than for air-based predators.
C
No predators that pose a danger to vervet monkeys can attack both from land and from the air.
(C) tells us that all predators that pose danger to vervet monkeys can be classified as fully land-based or fully air-based. However, (C) doesn’t help explain why the monkeys use different calls for the land-based predators than the air-based predators.
D
Vervet monkeys avoid land-based predators by climbing trees but avoid predation from the air by diving into foliage.
This is a reason that using differentiated calls could benefit vervet monkeys. If the monkeys avoid land-based predators in a different way than they avoid air-based predators, differentiated calls could help the monkeys know which type of avoidance strategy to prepare to use.
E
Certain land-based predators feed only on vervet monkeys, whereas every predator that attacks vervet monkeys from the air feeds on many different animals.
The diets of the predators that attack vervet monkeys are irrelevant. We’re only concerned with why the monkeys use different calls for land-based predators than for air-based predators.

23 comments

Technological improvements will enable food production to increase as populations increase. However, increases in food production will be negligible unless societies become more centralized so that all factors contributing to the production of food can be better coordinated. But, historically, the more centralized a society was, the greater the percentage of its people who perished if and when it collapsed. Thus, increasing the centralization of societies in an effort to increase food production via better technology will merely exacerbate the disasters associated with societal collapse.

Summary

As populations increase, technological progress will enable food production to also increase. If societies do not become more centralized, such that the factors contributing to food production can be better coordinated, then increases in food production from technology will be small. Historically, more centralized societies had a greater number of people die if it collapsed. Increasing centralization can therefore worsen the outcome of a societal collapse.

Strongly Supported Conclusions

It is impossible to significantly increase food production from technological gains without also worsening the risk of potential societal collapse. Technological improvements may prevent some, but not all, harms that occur when populations increase.

A
The more centralized a society is, the greater its need for increased food production.

This is unsupported because the author states that a greater need for food production may arise due to population increases, not necessarily due to increases in centralization.

B
Not every problem associated with the collapse of a centralized society would be prevented by technological improvements.

This is strongly supported because while the technology may help prevent food from running out, it may not prevent a large loss of life if societies become more centralized and then collapse.

C
The rate at which the world’s population is growing will continue to increase indefinitely.

This is unsupported because the author gives us no indication on how population changes will progress in the far future.

D
The production of food can be increased only by improved technology.

This is unsupported because the author states that technology may cause food production to increase, not that technological progress is a necessary condition of food production.

E
Societies have become more centralized as technology has improved.

This is unsupported because the author only states that societies will have to become more centralized to see major food gains from technological improvements, not that society has become more centralized.


18 comments